Public Transport in Melbourneâ€™s Eastern Region - Full Report

Public Transport in Melbourne’s Eastern Region - Full Report - Eastern Transport Coalition

18 July 2007

P10325

Australian Research Group Pty Ltd

ABN 67 101 442 808 ACN 101 442 808

Level 4, 100 Collins Street Level 9, 155 George Street Melbourne 3000 Sydney 2000 Ph: +61 3 9662-3220 Ph: +61 2 8213 3081 Fax: +61 3 9654 4756 Fax: +61 2 9252 6677

Email: [email protected]

CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary........................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Overview ................................................................................................................ 3 1.2 Electorate by Electorate Headlines........................................................................ 6

2. Introduction & Methodology.......................................................................................... 7 2.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 7 2.2 Survey methodology .............................................................................................. 7 2.3 Studied Electorates ................................................................................................ 8 2.4 Sample Size ........................................................................................................... 8 2.5 Structure of This Report ......................................................................................... 9

3. Key Findings ................................................................................................................. 10 3.1 Use of Public Transport........................................................................................ 10 3.2 Traffic and Roads................................................................................................. 14 3.3 Quality of Services ............................................................................................... 17 3.4 Effect of a lack of public transport........................................................................ 22 3.5 Link to Climate Change........................................................................................ 26 3.6 Responsibility ....................................................................................................... 29 3.7 Funding Solutions ................................................................................................ 32 3.8 Expectations of public transport provision ........................................................... 34 3.9 Voting Intentions .................................................................................................. 37 3.10 Importance of transport as an election issue ....................................................... 39

4. Questionnaire................................................................................................................ 41

10325 ETC Public Transport Report v09 (18.07.07).doc © 2007 The Australian Research Group

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Overview

In May 2007, in order to understand the transport needs of residents of Melbourne’s Eastern suburbs, the Eastern Transport Coalition commissioned the Australian Research Group (ARG) to conduct research into attitudes towards public transport in the Eastern region. The research took place in May. The study involved 1000 online interviews across six electorates in Melbourne’s East: Aston, Bruce, Chisholm, Deakin, La Trobe and Menzies. These electorates were selected because they fall within the area covered by the ETC member councils and for their political significance. The study explored attitudes and perceptions towards public transport in the area, barriers to greater usage and preferences for funding solutions.

(i) Use of public transport

More than two thirds of respondents travelled to work by car (71%) with while only 15% said they used public transport. An overwhelming majority of respondents (87%) travelled to non-work activities by car. In general, public transport use was low and infrequent with more than 70% of those surveyed saying that they used public transport once a month or less. La Trobe respondents were least likely to use public transport – only 16% used it once a week or more. Chisholm reported the most frequent use with 40% reporting that they used it at least once a week.

(ii) Traffic and roads

Most respondents reported high levels of congestion with the lowest incidence in Chisholm, which correspondingly had greatest access to transport services. Almost half of respondents said they experienced frequent problems accessing major roads during peak times. Respondents were asked who they thought should fix congestion problems – well over two thirds of respondents said that the State and Federal Governments should work together to solve the issue.

(iii) Quality of services

Access to bus services was almost universal across the region but some electorates such as Menzies and Aston had quite poor access to train services and most electorates had very minimal access to trams. Opinions of the three services varied across the electorates. Chisholm was the most positive and correspondingly had the highest level of access. Over half of respondents with access to trains said their overall opinion of the service was average or poor.


(iv) Effect of a lack of public transport

Respondents who had indicated that they did not have a positive opinion public transport were asked whether they felt that the lack of public transport infrastructure or the poor quality of existing infrastructure had a direct impact on either themselves or their families – over half or respondents said it did in both cases. When asked what those effects were; congestion, increased fuel costs and increased travel time were all seen as significant negative consequences.

(v) Link to climate change

An overwhelming proportion of respondents said they wanted to take steps to reduce their impact on the environment and close to 70% of respondents said that public transport was a practical way for them to achieve this. A sizeable number of respondents said that the lack or poor quality of public transport infrastructure had an impact on their ability to protect the environment.

(vi) Responsibility

Respondents were informed that the Federal Government provides funding for major roads but does not contribute to public transport infrastructure – 62% did not find this acceptable. This result in conjunction with the earlier sentiments expressed regarding fixing congestion problems indicates that there is broad support for ETC’s goal of encouraging the Federal Government to invest in major public transport infrastructure.

(vii) Funding solutions

More than three quarters of respondents (76%) believed the State and Federal Governments should share the cost for all necessary public transport infrastructure, reinforcing that there is very strong support for cooperation between the two levels of government on this issue. It was also found that most respondents thought governments should adequately fund public transport for the sake of the environment (91%), for economic reasons (92%) and to make life easier for families (93%).

(viii) Expectation of public transport provision

Two thirds of respondents (67%) surveyed said that governments were not giving sufficient priority to provision of good public transport infrastructure in their local area. Most respondents indicated that they would consider using public transport more often if the speed, quality and reliability were improved. These results indicate that while there is inadequate provision of public transport infrastructure there is willingness for people to adjust their travel habits if the services are improved.

(ix) Voting intentions

The findings here are roughly in line with the results of the last national Newspoll (conducted 15-19 June) indicating that the respondents in this survey are broadly representative of the wider electorate. This survey showed Labor with 45% of the primary vote leading the Coalition on 40% and the Greens polling 8%. The two party preferred result had Labor at 54% ahead of the Coalition on 46%.


(x) Importance of public transport as an election issue

Respondents were asked whether public transport infrastructure would be a factor in deciding whom they would vote for at the next Federal election - more than four out of five respondents (83%) said that the issue of public transport infrastructure would be a consideration. This suggests that public transport is a high profile issue in this region and that people are concerned enough about it to create an impact at the ballot box.


1.2 Electorate by Electorate Headlines

(i) Aston

Electorate with the lowest opinion of public transport. Second lowest level of train access. Highest levels of congestion and most frequent problems accessing major roads at peak times. Electorate most likely to believe the state and Federal Governments should cooperate to fix congestion problems. Most likely to find the lack of Federal Government funding for public transport infrastructure unacceptable. Most likely to feel the governments are not giving sufficient priority to public transport infrastructure.

(ii) Bruce

Electorate among the most likely to experience problems accessing major roads in peak times. Second highest level of public transport usage and second most likely to believe that governments should cooperate to fix these problems. Most likely to say that the lack or poor quality of public transport infrastructure had a direct effect on them.

(iii) Chisholm

Highest rate of public transport use and the only electorate with significant access to all three modes of public transport. Lowest levels of congestion and the most likely to say that public transport is a practical way to reduce environmental impact. Highest overall opinion of trains, trams and buses.

(iv) Deakin

Electorate experiencing the most trouble obtaining a seat on trains. Had the lowest opinion of the speed of the tram services. Deakin was the least affected by poor or lack of public transport. Among the least likely to say public transport was a practical way to reduce personal environmental impact.

(v) La Trobe

Lowest use of public transport for travel to work and non-work activities and equal lowest overall opinion of public transport. Among the most unhappy with the speed, timetable and reliability of the train services. Most unlikely to see public transport as a practical way for them to reduce their impact on the environment. Among the most inclined to feel that governments are not giving sufficient priority to public transport infrastructure.

(vi) Menzies

Lowest level of access to train services and second lowest level of access to tram services. Most unhappy with the speed of the journey on trains. Lowest opinion of tram services. Most families affected by poor or lack of public transport. Among the most likely to say they would use public transport more often if the quality and reliability was improved.


2. Introduction & Methodology

2.1 Background

The Eastern Transport Coalition (ETC) comprises the Cities of Greater Dandenong, Knox, Manningham, Maroondah, Monash, Whitehorse and the Shire of Yarra Ranges and represents nearly 1 million residents. ETC advocates for sustainable and integrated transport services in the Eastern region of Melbourne which focus on the travel needs of the community and reduce the level of car dependency. The outer eastern region of Melbourne has good public transport access in some locations and very poor access, particularly to rail and trams in other areas. While the Federal Government has made significant contributions to improving road infrastructure in the region, funding for public transport infrastructure has been largely overlooked. ETC is aiming to lobby the Federal Government to invest in major public transport projects in order to relieve some of the burden on the region’s road infrastructure and improve sustainability. ETC has indicated an interest in examining the links between the following issues:

- Public transport infrastructure - Traffic congestion - Petrol costs - Climate change - Voting intentions

With the current level of concern about climate change and in the face of rising petrol costs and increasing traffic congestion along the region’s major arterial roads, public transport seems to provide the most obvious solution to improving both the sustainability and accessibility of the Eastern suburbs. Against this background ETC is looking to lobby the Federal Government to provide funding support for major public transport projects in the East. A number of the most critical areas fall within Government-held marginal seats providing an opportunity to generate significant pressure for the campaign. Areas that this study will explore include –

- Current usage of public transport - Attitudes towards public transport - Attitudes towards climate change - Attitudes towards government responsibility and funding - Voting intentions

2.2 Survey methodology

Interviews were conducted online through our panel partner, Research Now. Research Now manages international online data collection across 24 proprietary, research-only online panels in Australasia, Europe, and North America using only respondents who have opted to receive invitations to participate in market research. A range of quality control measures are implemented to ensure that responses received are considered and genuine. For example:


- Email invitations are only sent to respondents who have registered to participate in market research;

- Responses are closely monitored to ensure no one is simply clicking the same response or pattern of responses;

- Minimum time thresholds proactively eliminate responses that appear to be the result of fast, careless answering;

- Contact information is checked against panel integrity databases to avoid sending multiple invitations to the same respondent.

- Email addresses, domains and IP's that are known to have provided inaccurate data are blocked.

Invitations were sent to a sample of respondents drawn in each electorate according to a nationally representative distribution. All respondents were incentivised for participation. The sample was drawn to reflect the population distribution of the area in question. Quotas were applied by gender, age and electorate and data were weighted to ensure representativeness.

2.3 Studied Electorates

The ETC public transport survey was conducted in the following 6 electorates -

Electorate Electoral Status1 Population2

Aston Liberal 13.2% 129,450 Bruce Labor 3.5% 129,162 Chisholm Labor 2.7% 131,540 Deakin Liberal 5.0% 120,642 La Trobe Liberal 5.9% 132,800 Menzies Liberal 10.7% 121,096

These electorates were selected because they fall within the area covered by the ETC member councils. While there are several other electorates such as Hotham and Isaacs, which fall partly within the ETC region a judgement was made that neither covered sufficient area to warrant inclusion in the study. A number of the electorates chosen are also key marginal seats that will be politically significant in the upcoming federal election. The electorate of Casey, while within the area of the ETC was omitted due to its status as a safe seat.

2.4 Sample Size

The measure of the accuracy of a survey is presented by the margin of error. This value expresses the amount of the random variation underlying a survey's results. A margin of error is usually prepared at the 95% confidence level – this means that 19 out of every 20 surveys will be within the stated ‘margin of error’. The margin of error on a sample of 1000 is ±3.1%. This means that if the survey finds that 50% of the population use trams then there is a 95% chance that the ‘true’ value is between 53.1% and 46.9%.

1 2004 election results from www.unsw.adfa.edu.au/hass/staff/Pendulum.pdf 2 Population statistics from www.abs.gov.au/census


http://www.unsw.adfa.edu.au/hass/staff/Pendulum.pdf

http://www.abs.gov.au/census

2.5 Structure of This Report

This report is divided into ten broad topic areas. These are –

- Use of public transport - Traffic and roads - Quality of services - Effect of a lack of public transport - Link to climate change - Responsibility - Funding solutions - Expectation of public transport provision - Voting intentions - Importance of public transport as an election issue

This report endeavours to present data in the most logical and understandable way possible. Sometimes this involves analysis of data by individual electorates, at others it makes more sense to dissect by transport method, voting intention or to simply aggregate data.


3. Key Findings

3.1 Use of Public Transport

Q4. What is your main form of transport for getting to and from your place of work?

a. Transport to Work

% of respondents

Car - as driver70%

Public transport15%

Car - as passenger3%

Not applicable12%

Base = All respondents

KEY FINDINGS:

• More than two in every three respondents travel to work by car (71%) with 68% driving themselves and a further 3% travelling as passengers.

• Only 15% say they use public transport as their primary form of transport to work. • Chisholm had the highest rate of public transport use (24%) followed by Bruce

(19%). • La Trobe had the lowest level of public transport use with only 5% saying it was

their main way of getting to work. • Greens voters (28%) were more than twice as likely as Coalition voters (11%) to use

public transport to get to work. NOTE: These figures are consistent with ABS Census data.


Q5. What is your main form of transport for travel not including your trip to and from work?

b. Transport to Other Activities

EY FINDINGS: ts indicated that their main form of transport for travel other than

• ans of travel to

• La Trobe said they used public transport as their main

• twice as likely as Labor voters (10%) to use

OTE: These figures provide particular insight as the ABS Census provides data only on

% of respondents

Car - as driver79%

Other2%

Public transport10%

Car - as passenger9%


K

• 87% of respondentheir journey to work was by car (78% as driver, 9% as passenger). Only 1 in 10 said they used public transport as their primary meother non-work activities. Only 5% of respondents inway of getting to non-work activities. Greens voters (22%) were more thanpublic transport to get to non-work activities and three times more likely than Coalition voters (7%).

Nthe journey to work and does not cover transport to other activities


Q6. How often do you use public transport?

c. Frequency of Use

23

33

28

25

16

16

15

33

34

37

28

38

27

34

15

16

11

9

16

18

20

9

7

7

9

13

7

8

13

7

10

18

8

21

16

8

2

8

10

10

12

7

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall

La Trobe

Aston

Bruce

Deakin

Chisholm

Menzies

% of respondents

Never Several times a year Once a monthOnce a w eek Several times a w eek Every day


KEY FINDINGS:

• More than 70% of those surveyed said that they used public transport once a month or less. Only 8% use it every day.

• Chisholm reported the most frequent use of public transport with 12% saying they used it every day and 21% using it several times a week.

• Respondents in La Trobe were least likely to use public transport with only 16% saying they used it at least once a week. One third of La Trobe respondents said they never use public transport.


Q7. How would you describe your level of knowledge about public transport facilities in your area?

d. Knowledge of Public Transport

9

8

9

9

14

8

5

27

36

31

29

21

23

18

40

35

42

42

36

42

43

13

12

11

10

16

13

19

11

8

7

10

14

14

15

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall

Chisholm

Deakin

Bruce

Menzies

Aston

La Trobe

% of respondents

Very high High Average Low Very low


KEY FINDINGS:

• Almost two thirds (64%) of respondents described their level of knowledge about public transport in their area as average or below. Only 9% described it as very high.

• As expected, those who used public transport to get to work were much more likely to say their level of knowledge was either high (49%) or very high (24%).


3.2 Traffic and Roads

Q8. How would you describe the typical level of congestion on major roads in your area at peak times?

a. Level of Congestion

40

53

44

43

38

30

29

47

37

50

43

46

51

58

12

9

5

13

15

18

12

0 20 40 60 80 100

Overall

Aston

Bruce

La Trobe

Deakin

Menzies

Chisholm

% of respondents

Very high level of congestion High level of congestion A little congestion


KEY FINDINGS:

• 40% of respondents reported encountering a very high level of congestion on major roads. A further 47% reported a high level.

• Aston reported the highest level of congestion (Very high: 53%) while Chisholm had the lowest (Very high: 29%).


Q9. How would you describe your typical experience of accessing major roads in your area at peak times?

b. Accessing Major Roads

20

28

27

22

15

15

12

28

26

25

30

32

26

27

44

38

43

41

45

45

51

4

5

1

4

2

10

6

4

3

4

3

6

4

4

0 20 40 60 80 100

Overall

Aston

Bruce

La Trobe

Chisholm

Menzies

Deakin

% of respondents

Very frequent problem for me Frequent problem for meOccasional problem for me Never had any problemsNever use the roads at peak times


KEY FINDINGS:

• Almost one in every two respondents (48%) said they experienced either frequent or very frequent problems accessing major roads in peak times.

• Aston (54%) and Bruce (52%) reported the most frequent problems accessing major roads peak times.


Q10. Who do you believe should fix the problems of traffic congestion on major roads in your area?

c. Fix Road Problems

70

74

62

85

69

27

23

37

14

27

4

4

2

1

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall

Labor

Coalition

Green

Other

% of respondents

Federal and State Governments State Government Federal Government


KEY FINDINGS:

• 70% of respondents believe the State and Federal Governments should work together to fix congestion problems on major roads.

• 74% of Labor voters believe that the State and Federal Governments should share the responsibility as did 62% of Coalition voters.

• 81% of respondents in Aston believe the governments should cooperate, followed by Bruce (76%) and La Trobe (68%).


3.3 Quality of Services

Q11. How would you describe your overall opinion of the public transport services in your area?

a. Overall Opinion

34

49

39

32

31

26

26

40

41

43

40

43

35

37

22

7

16

26

22

32

31

4

3

1

2

4

8

6

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall

Chisholm

Deakin

Menzies

Bruce

La Trobe

Aston

% of respondents

NETT Good Average NETT Poor Don't know


KEY FINDINGS:

• 62% of respondents thought public transport was either average or poor. • 49% of Chisholm respondents thought that overall, public transport was either good

or very good. Only 26% in La Trobe and Aston rated it as good or very good. • La Trobe had the lowest opinion of public transport with 32% rating it as either poor

or very poor. • Three out of five Coalition voters (61%) and 63% of Labor voters rate public

transport as either average or worse. • The order of the electorates is almost the inverse of question 8, suggesting that

there is a direct connection between overall opinions of public transport (driven partly by degree of access) and perceived levels of congestion.


Q12. Which of the following services operate in your area?

b. Services Operate in My Area

29

100

8

88

99

5

41

100

17

95

99

29

92

100

50

91

99

9

0 20 40 60 80 100

Trains

Buses

Trams

% of respondents

Menzies La Trobe Aston Deakin Chisholm Bruce


KEY FINDINGS:

• Chisholm has the best access to the three forms of public transport with 100% coverage for buses, 92% for trains and 50% for trams.

• Three of the six electorates reported 100% bus coverage with the other half recording 99% access.

• Menzies (29%) and Aston (41%) had much lower rates of train operation than the other electorates which all rated above 88%.

• Chisholm was the only electorate to report significant access to tram services (50%) followed by Deakin (29%) and the other areas at less than 20%.


Q13. How would you rate the following aspects of the train services in your area??

c. Train Services

43

60

42

35

34

27

38

29

41

42

33

40

13

9

12

17

26

27

0 20 40 60 80 1

Overall Quality

Locations of stations

Speed of the journey

Timetable of services

Ability to obtain a seat

Reliability

% of respondents

00

NETT Good Average NETT Poor

Base: Respondents w ith train services operating intheir area (n=756)

KEY FINDINGS:

• This question was only asked of respondents who said at question 12 that train services operated in their local area.

• Just over half of respondents who indicated that train services operate in their area (51%) said their overall opinion of the quality of train services in their area was either average or poor.

• More than half of respondents said that they felt that the speed of the journey (53%), the timetable of services (59%), their ability to obtain a seat (59%) and the reliability of the service (67%) were either average or poor.

• Respondents in Aston were the least happy with the overall quality of the service (NETT good: 38%) while respondents in Menzies were the most happy (NETT good: 53%).

• Chisholm was the most satisfied with the speed of the journey (NETT good: 53%) while Menzies (NETT good: 31%) and La Trobe (NETT good: 33%) were the least happy.

• Aston (NETT good: 18%) and La Trobe (NETT good: 21%) respondents had the lowest overall opinion of the service’s reliability while Menzies (NETT good: 37%) and Chisholm (NETT good: 34%) had the highest.

• Fewer than one in three Deakin respondents (30%) said their ability to obtain a seat on a train was good.


Q14. How would you rate the following aspects of bus services in your area?

d. Bus Services

44

56

47

34

31

26

32

24

26

35

37

34

8

8

8

13

14

22

0 20 40 60 80 1

Overall Quality



Reliability



% of respondents

00


Base: Respondents w ith bus servicesoperating in their area (n=995)

KEY FINDINGS:

• This question was only asked of respondents who said at question 12 that bus services operated in their local area.

• Less than half the respondents in every electorate except Chisholm (NETT good: 51%) had a good opinion of the bus services operating in their area.

• La Trobe respondents (35%) were the most unhappy with the overall quality of the service. They also had the lowest opinion of the locations of the stops (NETT good: 47%), the speed of the journey (NETT good: 24%), the timetable (21%) and the reliability of the services (30%).

• 56% of all respondents indicated that they thought the timetable of services was either average or poor.


Q15. How would you rate the following aspects of the tram services in your area?

e. Tram Services

59

58

31

46

49

54

22

23

36

31

29

25

7

11

19

7

6

7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Overall Quality




Reliability


% of respondents


Base = Respondents w ith tram services operating in their area (n=204)

KEY FINDINGS:

• This question was only asked of respondents who said at question 12 that tram services operated in their local area.

• Satisfaction with tram services varied significantly across electorates. Chisholm (NETT good: 65%) had the highest opinion while Menzies was less than third of this on 19%.

• Menzies also had the lowest opinion of the locations of stops (NETT good: 19%), the timetable (NETT good: 35%), the reliability of the service (NETT good: 35%) and their ability to obtain a seat (NETT good: 19%).

• Deakin had the lowest opinion of the speed with less than a quarter of respondents saying they thought it was good.

• Chisholm respondents had the highest opinion of almost every aspect of the tram services in their area. 64% were said the location of stops was good, 54% said the service was reliable and 52% said their ability to get a seat was good.


3.4 Effect of a lack of public transport

Q16. Do you feel that the lack or poor quality of public transport infrastructure in your area affects you directly?

a. Direct Personal Affect

55

65

57

56

54

52

46

35

25

34

35

37

37

44

10

10

9

9

10

11

10

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall

Bruce

Aston

Menzies

Chisholm

La Trobe

Deakin

% of respondents

Yes No Not sure

Base: Respondents w ho indicated they had an 'average' to'very poor' opinion of public transport (n=617)

KEY FINDINGS:

• Respondents who indicated at question 11 that their opinion of public transport was either average or poor were asked this question.

• 56% said that the lack or poor quality of public transport had a direct affect on them.

• Respondents in Bruce (65%) were most affected while Deakin was the least affected (47%).

• Deakin was the only electorate where less than half of the respondents said they were affected.


Q17. Does the lack or poor quality of public transport services in your area affect you in any of the following ways?

b. Personal Effects of Public Transport

62

60

57

51

50

43

31

28

33

30

30

39

41

42

39

45

4

7

10

8

8

14

29

26

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Congestion

Increased fuel costs

Increased travel time

Air pollution

Lack of transport choice

At risk of road accidents

Reduced independence

Reduces ability to access activities

% of respondents

A lot A little Not at all

Base: Respondents w ho indicated that the lack or poor quality ofpublic transport had a direct personal effect (n=345)

KEY FINDINGS:

• Congestion was the most common problem (62%) followed closely by increased fuel costs (60%) and increased travel time (57%).

• All of the possible affects of a lack or poor quality of public transport infrastructure had at least some affect on more than 70% of respondents.


Q18. Does the lack or poor quality of public transport services in your area affect your family directly or not?

c. Direct Family Affect

54

61

60

57

54

50

43

35

30

33

32

36

33

47

11

9

7

11

10

17

10

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall

Menzies

Aston

Chisholm

La Trobe

Bruce

Deakin

% of respondents

Yes No Not sure


KEY FINDINGS:

• Respondents who indicated at question 11 that their opinion of public transport was either average or poor were asked this question.

• 54% of respondents said the lack or poor quality of public transport infrastructure had a direct affect on their family.

• Families in Menzies were most affected (61%) while those in Deakin were least affected (43%).

• Again, Deakin was the only electorate where less than 50% of respondents said their families were affected.


Q19. Does the lack or poor quality of public transport infrastructure in your area affect your family in any of the following ways?

d. Family Affects of Public Transport

67

65

65

52

48

48

46

44

40

28

29

28

39

38

30

39

41

46

5

5

5

8

11

20

13

13

13

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Increased fuel costs

Congestion

Increades travel time

Lack of transport choice

Air pollution

Concern for young drivers

At risk of road accidents

Reduced independence

Reduces ability to access activities

% of respondents


Base: Respondents w ho indicated that the lack or poor quality ofpublic transport had a direct effect on their family (n=335)

KEY FINDINGS:

• Increased fuel costs were the most often cited problem (67%), followed by congestion (65%) and increased travel time (65%).

• All of the possible affects of a lack or poor quality of public transport infrastructure on families had at least some affect on more than 75% of respondents.


3.5 Link to Climate Change

Q20. Would you like to take more steps to reduce your impact on the environment or not?

a. Reduce Impact on the Environment

81

84

83

83

81

79

72

5

4

5

2

7

3

11

14

12

12

15

13

18

17

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall

Aston

Chisholm

Bruce

Deakin

La Trobe

Menzies

% of respondents

Yes No Don't Know


KEY FINDINGS:

• Four out of five respondents (81%) said they would like to take more steps to reduce their impact on the environment.

• Five of the six electorates reported only single-digit negative responses with Menzies the only exception with 11% of respondents saying they wouldn’t like to take more steps to reduce their environmental impact.

• 83% of Labor voters said they wanted to reduce their impact on the environment while 77% of Coalition voters said the same.


Q21. Is use of public transport a practical way for you to reduce your impact on the environment at present or not?

b. Practical Way to Reduce Environmental Impact

21

25

25

24

22

17

15

47

53

44

48

41

52

46

28

19

27

24

32

30

36

4

3

4

4

5

2

4

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall

Chisholm

Menzies

Bruce

Aston

Deakin

La Trobe

% of respondents

Definitely To some extent Not at all Don't know / Can't say


KEY FINDINGS:

• 68% of respondents said using public transport was a practical way for them to reduce their impact on the environment.

• Respondents in Chisholm (78%) were much more likely to say it was a practical for them than respondents in La Trobe (60%).

• Of those respondents who took public transport top work, 97% also said they felt it was a practical way for them to reduce their environmental impact. Only 62% of car travellers said it was practical for them.


Q22. Does the lack or poor quality of public transport infrastructure in your area have any impact on your ability to do the best you can to protect the environment?

c. Ability to Protect the Environment

25

29

27

27

26

25

18

48

41

49

39

51

48

58

19

22

18

22

16

15

20

8

8

6

12

7

13

4

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall

Aston

La Trobe

Menzies

Bruce

Chisholm

Deakin

% of respondents

Definitely To some extent Not at all Don't know


KEY FINDINGS:

• Of those respondents who indicated that their opinion of public transport was average or lower, 45% said that the lack or poor quality of public transport had an impact on their ability to protect the environment.


3.6 Responsibility

Q23. Who do you believe has primary responsibility for running public transport?

a. Responsibility for Running Public Transport

70

75

74

72

69

68

64

9

8

6

13

10

5

14

13

10

16

8

14

20

9

8

7

4

7

8

7

13

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall

Aston

La Trobe

Menzies

Deakin

Chisholm

Bruce

% of respondents

The State Government The Federal Government Private operators Don't know


KEY FINDINGS:

• 70% of respondents thought that the State Government had primary responsibility for running public transport. 9% said the Federal Government and 8% didn’t know. Only 13% chose private operators.


Q24. Who do you believe has primary responsibility for funding public transport infrastructure?

b. Responsibility for Funding Public Transport

66

72

69

67

67

65

56

21

17

19

22

20

19

25

6

4

7

7

5

8

3

8

7

6

4

7

8

15

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall

La Trobe

Menzies

Aston

Deakin

Chisholm

Bruce

% of respondents

The State Government The Federal Government Private operators Don't know


KEY FINDINGS:

• 21% of respondents thought that the Federal Government had primary responsibility for funding public transport infrastructure. 6% said private operators and 8% didn’t know. 66% chose answered the State Government.

• Labor voters (28%) were more likely to believe the State Government was responsible for funding than Coalition voters (11%).


Q25. The Federal Government directly provides millions of dollars in funding for some major roads in cities, but does not contribute any such funds for suburban public transport infrastructure. Is this acceptable to you or not?

c. Federal Funding of Roads

62

70

64

62

62

57

56

26

20

24

27

23

32

30

12

10

11

11

15

10

14

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall

Aston

Bruce

Deakin

La Trobe

Chisholm

Menzies

% of respondents

No Yes Don't knowBase = All respondents

KEY FINDINGS:

• 62% of respondents said it was not acceptable that the Federal Government provided funding for major roads but not for public transport infrastructure.

• 70% of Aston respondents said the situation was unacceptable. • Labor voters (72%) were much more likely to find the situation unacceptable than

Coalition voters (49%).


3.7 Funding Solutions

Q26. How do you feel about the following proposed funding solutions for public transport infrastructure in outer Melbourne?

a. Funding Solutions

76

79

78

78

76

72

72

18

15

18

17

17

22

22

6

7

4

5

7

5

6

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall

Chisholm

La Trobe

Aston

Bruce

Deakin

Menzies

% of respondents

The State and Federal Governments The State Government The Federal Government


KEY FINDINGS:

• More than three quarters of respondents (76%) believed the State and Federal Governments should share the cost for all necessary public transport infrastructure.

• Labor voters (84%) were more likely to think the State and Federal Governments should share costs than Coalition voters.


Q27. Do you believe governments should adequately fund the cost of public transport infrastructure…?

b. Reasons to Fund Public Transport Infrastructure

93

91

92

88

3

4

3

5

4

4

5

7

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

To make life easier forfamilies

For the sake of theenvironment

For economic reasons

More cost effective fortaxpayers

% of respondents

NETT Agree NETT Disagree Don't know


KEY FINDINGS:

• More than nine out of ten respondents said they thought governments should adequately fund public transport for the sake of the environment (91%), for economic reasons (92%) and to make life easier for families (93%). 88% believed they should do it because it would be more cost effective for taxpayers.


3.8 Expectations of public transport provision

Q28. Do you believe governments are giving sufficient priority to provision of good public transport infrastructure in your local area or not?

a. Sufficient Priority

14

22

15

14

13

12

9

67

57

63

68

67

74

71

19

21

22

18

21

13

20

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall

Chisholm

Bruce

Menzies

Deakin

Aston

La Trobe

% of respondents

Yes No Don't KnowBase = All respondents

KEY FINDINGS:

• Two thirds of respondents (67%) surveyed said that governments were not giving sufficient priority to provision of good public transport infrastructure in their local area.

• Respondents in Aston (74%) and La Trobe (71%) were most inclined to feel this way with Chisholm (57%), the only electorate with significant access to all three primary forms of public transport, the least likely.


Q29. If the quality and reliability of public transport close to your home was improved through new infrastructure, would you consider using it more often or not?

b. Quality and Reliability

62

67

64

64

61

60

55

11

12

15

14

10

9

8

19

14

10

14

17

25

28

9

7

10

9

11

6

9

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall

Bruce

Menzies

Aston

La Trobe

Chisholm

Deakin

% of respondents

Yes No I already use it as much as I need to Don't know


KEY FINDINGS:

• 62% of respondents indicated that they would consider using public transport more often if the quality and reliability of public transport infrastructure was improved.

• 69% of respondents aged 18-29 said they would consider using it more often under those circumstances.

• Less than 20% of respondents said they already used public transport as much as they needed to, indicating that there is significant potential for increased usage.

• 61% of respondents who travel to work by car indicated that they would be willing to consider public transport and 67% of those who take public transport to work said they would also consider using it more often.


Q30. If it was much quicker for you to get to work or other activities on public transport would you consider using public transport at least some of the time or not?

c. Quicker Journey

73

76

76

75

73

71

69

8

8

5

12

13

5

9

13

12

10

10

8

18

18

5

5

8

3

6

5

4

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall

Bruce

La Trobe

Menzies

Aston

Deakin

Chisholm

% of respondents

Yes No I already use it as much as I need to Don't know


KEY FINDINGS:

• 73% of respondents said they would consider increasing their use of public transport if it was much quicker for them to get to work and other activities.

• 78% of respondents aged 18-29 said they would consider it compared with 70% of those aged 50 or older.

• 76% of respondents who travel to work by car indicated that they would be willing to consider public transport and if the journey was much quicker.


3.9 Voting Intentions

Q31. If a Federal election for the House of Representatives were held today, which party would receive your first preference vote?

a. Primary Vote

45

52

46

46

42

41

41

40

36

39

32

51

45

43

7

3

7

12

4

9

7

8

10

8

9

3

6

9

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall

Bruce

Aston

Chisholm

Menzies

Deakin

La Trobe

% of respondents

Labor Party Coalition The Greens Other

Base = Respondents w ho selecteda party (n=892)

NOTE: These figures exclude respondents who said they didn’t know who would receive

their first preference vote.


Q32. At a Federal election you are required to vote for all candidates in your electorate in order of preference. Will you give a higher preference to the Labor Party candidate or the Liberal/National Party candidate?

b. Two Party Preferred

54

62

59

56

50

49

46

46

38

41

44

50

51

54

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall

Chisholm

Bruce

Aston

La Trobe

Deakin

Menzies

% of respondents

Labor Party Coalition

Base = Respondents w ho selecteda party (n=855)

NOTE: These figures exclude respondents who said they didn’t know who would receive

their first two party preferred vote.


3.10 Importance of transport as an election issue

Q33. When thinking about how you will vote at the next Federal election, which will be the most important to you?

a. Voting Influence

56

61

59

56

55

55

52

26

22

25

28

28

24

31

12

12

6

11

14

12

14

5

6

9

4

3

8

3

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall

Chisholm

Menzies

Deakin

Aston

Bruce

La Trobe

% of respondents

The parties' position on national issuesHow I feel about the leaders of the major parties

The parties' position on issues specif ic to my local areaHow I feel about my local candidate


KEY FINDINGS:

• Unsurprisingly the majority of respondents in every electorate said that the parties’ position on national issues would be the most important factor in deciding their vote, followed by how they felt about the leaders of the major parties.


Q34. How important will the issue of public transport infrastructure be in deciding how you will vote?

b. Public Transport as an Election Issue

14

16

16

14

14

14

9

42

44

33

49

46

33

42

27

25

34

20

25

26

31

0 20 40 60 80

Overall

Chisholm

Deakin

Bruce

Aston

Menzies

La Trobe

% of respondents

100

Very important - Major considerationSomew hat Important - Some considerationOf small importance - Small amount of consideration


KEY FINDINGS:

• More than four out of five respondents (83%) said that the issue of public transport infrastructure would be of importance when deciding who they would vote for in the next Federal election.

• Almost 90% of Labor voters and 80% of Coalition voters said they would consider public transport infrastructure when deciding on their vote.

• 90% of respondents aged 18-29 said they would consider the issue.


4. Questionnaire

1. Demographics

Qu 1. Please indicate your gender

Single Response

Male Female

Qu 2. Please indicate your age

Single Response

Route

17 years or younger CLOSE

18-29

30-39

40-49

50 years or older

Qu 3. What is your postcode?

Single Response


2. Use of public transport

a. Use and awareness

Qu 4. What is your main form of transport for getting to and from your place of work?

Single Response

Car – as driver Car – as passenger Public transport Bicycle Motorbike Other Not applicable

Qu 5. What is your main form of transport for travel not including your trip to and from work?

Single Response

Car – as driver Car – as passenger Public transport Bicycle Motorbike Other

Qu 6. How often do you use public transport?

Single Response

Route

Every day

Several times a week

Once a week

Once a month

Several times a year

Never


Qu 7. How would you describe your level of knowledge about public transport

facilities in your area?

Single Response

Very low: I really don’t know much Low: I know a little bit Average: I know something High: I know a lot Very high: I know quite a lot


3. Traffic and roads

a. Scale of traffic problems

Qu 8. How would you describe the typical level of congestion on major roads in your area at peak times?

Choose only one

A very high level of congestion A high level of congestion A little congestion No congestion Don’t know

Qu 9. How would you describe your typical experience of accessing major roads in your area at peak times?

Choose only one

I’ve never had any problems It has been an occasional problem for me It has been a frequent problem for me It has been a very frequent problem for me I never use the roads at peak times Don’t know

b. Responsibility for road problems

Qu 10. Who do you believe should fix the problems of traffic congestion on major roads in your area?

[ROTATE]

Choose only one

The State Government should fix the problems The Federal Government should fix the problems Federal and State Governments should work together to fix the problems


4. Quality of services

Qu 11. How would you describe your overall opinion of the public transport services

in your area?

Single Response Route Very good SKIP Qu 16-19 & 22

Good SKIP Qu 16-19 & 22

Average

Poor

Very poor

Don’t know SKIP Qu 16-19 & 22

Qu 12. Which of the following services operate in your area?

Operate in my Area

Do NOT operate in my area

Route

Trains IF NO SKIP Qu 13

Trams IF NO SKIP Qu 14

Buses IF NO SKIP Qu 15

a. Rail services

Qu 13. How would you rate the following aspects of the train services in your area?

Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Don’t

know

Overall quality The location of the station(s) The speed of the journey The timetable of services Reliability Ability to obtain a seat

b. Bus services

Qu 14. How would you rate the following aspects of the bus services in your area?


know

Overall quality The location of the stops The speed of the journey The timetable of services Reliability Ability to obtain a seat


c. Tram services

Qu 15. How would you rate the following aspects of the tram services in your area?


know

Overall quality The location of the stops The speed of the journey The timetable of services Reliability Ability to obtain a seat


5. Effect of a lack of public transport

a. Personal effect

Qu 16. Do you feel that the lack or poor quality of public transport infrastructure in your area affects you directly?

[TO BE ANSWERED BY THOSE WHO SELECTED ‘AVERAGE’, ‘POOR’ OR ‘VERY POOR’ AT QU 11]

Single Response Route

Yes No SKIP TO Qu 20I’m not sure SKIP TO Qu 20

Qu 17. Does the lack or poor quality of public transport infrastructure in your area affect you in any of the following ways?

[TO BE ANSWERED BY THOSE WHO SELECTED ‘AVERAGE’, ‘POOR’ OR ‘VERY POOR’ AT QU 11] [ROTATE]


Don’t Know

Increased fuel costs Lack of transport choice Reduces my ability to access certain activities I feel at increased risk of accidents due to the large numbers of cars on our roads

Air pollution from too many cars Traffic jams/road congestion Increases the time it takes me to travel to and from work/study

Reduced Independence/Reliance on others Other (Specify)

Qu 18. Do you feel that the lack or poor quality of public transport infrastructure in your area affects your family directly or not?


Single Response Route

Yes No SKIP TO Qu 20I’m not sure SKIP TO Qu 20


Qu 19. Does the lack or poor quality of public transport infrastructure in your area affect your family in any of the following ways?



Don’t Know

Increased fuel costs Lack of transport choice Reduces access to certain activities for members of my family

Concerns for younger family members driving on busy roads

Risk of family members being involved in accidents Air pollution from too many cars affects the health of family members

Traffic jams/road congestion lead to delays Increases the time it takes family members to drive to and from work/study

Reduced independence/Reliance on others Other (Specify)


6. Link to climate change

a. Concerns about reducing emissions

Qu 20. Would you like to take more steps to reduce your impact on the environment or not?

Single Response

Yes No Don’t know/ Can’t say

Qu 21. Is use of public transport a practical way for you to reduce your impact on the environment at present or not?

Single Response

Definitely To some extent Not at all Don’t know/ Can’t say

Qu 22. Does the lack or poor quality of public transport infrastructure in your area have any impact on your ability to do the best you can to protect the environment or not?


Single Response

Definitely To some extent Not at all Don’t know/ Can’t say


7. Responsibility

a. Knowledge of public transport responsibility

Qu 23. Who do you believe has primary responsibility for running public transport?

Choose only one The Federal Government The State Government Private operators Don’t know / Can’t say

Qu 24. Who do you believe has primary responsibility for funding public transport infrastructure?

Choose only one

The Federal Government The State Government Private operators Don’t know / Can’t say

Qu 25. The Federal Government directly provides millions of dollars in funding for some major roads in cities, but does not contribute any such funds for suburban public transport infrastructure. Is this acceptable to you or not?

Single Response



8. Funding solutions

Qu 26. How do you feel about the following proposed funding solutions for public

transport infrastructure in outer Melbourne? [ROTATE]

Choose only one

Route

The State Government should pay for all necessary public transport infrastructure

The Federal Government should fund all necessary public transport infrastructure

The State and Federal Governments should share the cost for large-scale public transport infrastructure SKIP TO Qu 28

Qu 27. Do you believe governments should adequately fund the cost of public transport infrastructure…

[ROTATE]

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly

Disagree Don’t know

For the sake of the environment For economic reasons To make life easier for families Because it would be more cost effective for taxpayers


9. Expectations of public transport provision

Qu 28. Do you believe governments are giving sufficient priority to provision of good public transport infrastructure in your local area or not?

Single Response


Qu 29. If the quality and reliability of public transport close to your home was improved through new infrastructure, would you consider using it more often or not?

Single Response

Yes No I already use it as much as I need to

Don’t know/ Can’t say

Qu 30. If it was much quicker for you to get to work or other activities on public transport would you consider using public transport at least some of the time or not?

Single Response

Yes No I already use it as much as I need to

Don’t know/ Can’t say


10. Voting intentions

Qu 31. If a Federal election for the House of Representatives were held today, which

party would receive your first preference vote?

[ROTATE TOP TWO]

Select One Route

1 Labor Party End

2 Liberal Party End

3 The Nationals End

4 The Greens Qu 33

5 Family First Party Qu 33

6 Australian Democrats Qu 33

7 An independent candidate Qu 33

8 Some other party Qu 33

9 Don’t know Qu 32

Qu 32. Which of these parties are you leaning towards?

[ROTATE TOP TWO]

Select One Route

1 Labor Party End

2 Liberal Party End

3 The Nationals End

4 The Greens Qu 33

5 Family First Party Qu 33

6 Australian Democrats Qu 33

7 An independent candidate Qu 33

8 Some other party Qu 33

9 Don’t know End

Qu 33. At a Federal Election you are required to vote for all candidates in your electorate in order of preference. Will you give a higher preference to the Labor Party candidate or the Liberal/National Party candidate?

[ROTATE TOP TWO]

Select One

1 Labor Party 2 Liberal/ National Party 3 Don’t know


11. Importance of transport as a voting issue

Qu 34. When thinking about how you will vote at the next Federal election, which will be the most important to you?

Single Response

How I feel about the leaders of the major parties How I feel about my local candidate The parties’ position on national issues The parties’ position on issues specific to my local area

Qu 35. How important will the issue of public transport infrastructure be in deciding how you will vote?

Single Response

Very important – I will give it major consideration Somewhat Important – I will give it some consideration Of small importance – I will give it a small amount of consideration

Of no importance – it is not relevant to how I will vote Don’t know


Public Transport in Melbourneâ€™s Eastern Region - Full Report

Documents

Transcript of Public Transport in Melbourneâ€™s Eastern Region - Full Report